As I stepped into the tourist guide shop, I wondered how I could make the most of this day for my research. Which topic should I pursue? I wandered through the flyer stands, picking up a few that caught my interest. One title immediately stood out: ‘Verschwundenes Freiburg – LOST PLACES – Bildvorträge | Stadtführungen.’ I knew this was the one. However, none of the event dates or exhibitions aligned with the day I was here.
Lost places - they should be everywhere, I thought. This is the kind of exploration I’m drawn to, though I’ve never considered it ‘tourism’. Yet, the more I thought about it, the more it began to take shape as a unique type of tourism. It felt different from the classic ‘touristic gaze,’ but in its own way, it was equally compelling.
The question I was exploring is whether urban exploration or urbex can be considered a form of tourism, why people are drawn to it and what relation it has to the tourist gaze. In my research I read scientific publications which talked about this subject and the different influences on urban exploration as well as its relation to tourism.
One way to categorize urban exploration is as a form of “beyond tourism” or even anti-tourism. Yet early urban explorers were, in many ways, tourists themselves - visiting places before they became mainstream destinations. For some, formal tourism fails to provide a sense of authenticity. In contrast, urban exploration offers alternative experiences of otherness and a more intense sense of truth. While it doesn't conform to traditional tourism, it overlaps with aspects of heritage tourism, dark tourism, and adventure tourism.
Urban exploration challenges the classical touristic gaze, which is often shaped by over-romanticized signs, curated expectations, and commodified experiences. Explorers reject prepared attractions, seeking out the hidden and abandoned spaces that exist outside of lively infrastructures: derelict buildings, unfinished construction sites, hollow interiors, tunnels in ruin - all decaying in their own way, often being slowly reclaimed by nature. These sites lie outside the clean, safe, and marketable image promoted by conventional tourism. Yet this form of travel carries its own aesthetic appeal, often centered on the visual. Photography and video are central to the urban exploration experience, shared online and generating a kind of parallel touristic gaze.
This phenomenon has sometimes been labeled “ruin porn” - a term that reflects concern over the fetishization or aestheticization of decay, transforming these spaces into exotic visual commodities, not unlike traditional tourist attractions. At its most extreme, the touristic gaze becomes voyeuristic - a lingering and sometimes problematic observation of spaces not meant to be seen or consumed in this way.
As compelling as urban exploration is, there is another side that is often overlooked. A critical feminist lens prompts us to ask: Whose bodies are seen as legitimate explorers? Urbex is frequently portrayed through a highly gendered and exclusionary lens, glorifying physical strength, risk-taking and adventure. The archetypal explorer is imagined as able-bodied, masculine, white, and fearless - leaving little room for women, queer individuals, disabled people, or people of color. Many are excluded due to physical, social, or legal risks - whether it's fear of violence, surveillance, or arrest. Urban space is not equally accessible to all bodies; risk and fear are experienced differently depending on identity. Romanticized notions of liberation through urbex often ignore these inequalities in access and safety. Moreover, many urbex communities - especially on websites and forums - are saturated with performances of masculinity. These self-representations shape who feels welcome and who is excluded within these spaces. This is particularly troubling in a genre that is often presented as a form of personal or spatial “freedom.”
Robınson, P. (2015). Conceptualizing Urban Exploration as Beyond Tourism and asAnti-Tourism. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR), 3(2),141-164.Mott,C., & Roberts, S. M. (2014). Not everyone has (the) balls: Urbanexploration and the persistence of masculinist geography. Antipode, 46(1),229-245.
Urban exploration, from my perspective, offers also another aspect.
It is, in itself, a form of art - or at least a space that allows for artistic creation through its unique spatial qualities. Whether through graffiti, photography, the repurposing of scrap material, or the spontaneous generation of new ideas that only emerge in these desolate places, art finds fertile ground in abandonment. Sometimes connected to its historic or politic meaning.
Time seems to stand still, even as decay advances rapidly.
These places are inherently unsafe, and that danger contributes to the thrill that many explorers seek. As long as everything remains still, there is a strange calm - a stillness that feels both peaceful and captivating. But what happens when that stillness is disrupted?
The AR art piece I conceptualized is deeply influenced by the relationship between tourism, urban exploration, and the touristic gaze. The project initially started as a thought experiment: envisioning whole Freiburg suddenly abandoned. The piece is now a fracture of this experiment but still holds the idea. It is now hidden in the digital space in the heart of Freiburg. Placed next to the "Kaiserwache" matching the aesthetic of decay in the middle of the city. This work invites viewers to question their perspective on tourism and urban exploration. Does the desire to "discover" such spaces stem from a pursuit of otherness? Is that pursuit something worth chasing? The piece isolates the viewer from the outside world. The paintings on the wall are inviting to be looked at. Shards floating through the air fracture the stillness and sense of safety, representing experiences that lie beyond any familiar experience. These shards symbolize moments of rupture - of stepping outside the conformed and known - leaving the viewer suspended in a unique and unsettling spectacle. The sculpture that ultimately forms reflects the ongoing decay and the slow, persistent reclamation of these spaces by nature. It is a visual meditation. A moment to experience urban exploration as conventional tourists.
David Krenz is a Master's student in Computer Science with a specialization in Robotics at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, combining technical proficiency with a deep passion for creativity. He also gained valuable experience studying media arts at Hochschule für Gestaltung, which further fueled his interest in merging technology and artistic expression. With a background in both robotics and the arts, David is committed to bridging these two fields, exploring the intersection where innovation meets creativity. Exhibited works are 'Glitch Pitch' (2024), a light sculpture with live coding changing visuals. 'Ways of Transparency' (2024), a narrative film about slime molds and the transparency of technology. His upcoming piece ‘Shards of Stillness’ (2025) during Freiburg Biennale is about the fascination of exploring the hidden.
